הפסקים
whats the difference according to the alter rebbe, if there is a separation in a tzadik and shin or if there is a separation in any other letter?
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
Ink, Kosher vs. non-Kosher
We all know that there is no ancient source that requires ink to be מן המותר בפיך . Possibly, as said here before, because in the olden days ink was always מן המותר בפיך and the question was never raised. It was probably self-evident. Nowadays, no decent Rav will approve an ink which is not מן המותר בפיך . Who was the first one to raise this question? Was it raised because of animal ingredients or because of non-kosher wine?
Question to Yosef Chaim B
Thank you for commenting on my ink article. In your comment you stated: "Many poskim disagree... Many rishonim have clearly stated the use of our ingredients." Would you please be kind enough to teach us (so I can include it in the article) which Poskim and what exactly and where did they say that the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink is preferable over good quality דיו עשן that does not fail? We are not interested in biased פילפולים , or in those who said that דיו עשן is not being used because it fails easily or because it was not known how to make good quality דיו עשן. Nor are we interested in those who said to use עפצים וקנקנתום וגומא ואין לשנות when they discussed specifically the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink. We are interested to find out where and who (if any) said explicitly, based on sources, that the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink is preferable over good quality דיו עשן , even when there is דיו עשן of good quality that does not ...
In zadi or shin that they may be separated into 2 letters, if obvious to us that they have changed [IE hefsek nikar at the the joining point of nun and yud of zadi] they may not be fixed in tefilin or mezuza shlo k'sidran.
ReplyDeleteBut other letters that have such an hefsek have not changed to new letters are still the original letter, may be fixed shlo k'sidran.
The example of shin given by the rishonim (and quoted in alter rebbe) is very remote in practice to occur today, that the shin would seperate into a zayin and ayin (or tes).
ReplyDeleteIn out csavim it just doesnt occur, the center piece never looks like an ayin.
Note that there is a healthy debate in regard to zadi of ari that the yud is backward and the nun part is clearly distinct, because of its wide base and very bent center line, if a seperation between them, makes their fixing shlo k'sidran.
what is the maskoneh re nifsak shenikkar lehedya in arizal tzadi?
ReplyDeleteOne has to be careful !!
ReplyDeleteBut we should be more meikel in a zadi of arizal because of the above - as long as it isn't clear to our eyes that they have changed to nun & yud - very far for a arizal's zadi.
The alter rebbe's zadi may be a bit closer to a shayla of nun & yud, because a seperated yud from the guf, may resemble more a yud.
if there is a hefsek nikkar between the nun and the yud it is posul?
ReplyDeleteisn't that what the mishna berera says?
is that what you wrote in אותות ומופפתים י"ד?
yes a hefsek nikar turns the zadi into 2 separate letters = nun yud.
ReplyDeletebut in cases that although the hefsek is nikar, the result is not nikar [Ie we dont see 2 distinct letters, in our case yud nun] then there is no difference between a zadi or alef that the yud is nifsak, that it is permitted to fix.
the iykar [p'sul] is (not that the crack is nikar, but) that a new letter combination is nikar.
once there is a hefsek nikkar at the base of the yud of the zadi it is unfixable?
ReplyDeleteso the alter rebbe in the parentheses is talking about a hefsek sheino nikkar?
is there any time that there is a hefsek in yudei halef etc. that will be unfixable even if a tinok reads it properly?
The yudei ha'alef may always be fixed, unless the hefsek is very big that it is obvious that the ois is batel (Mishna Berura, although this point isn't mentioned in SA AR).
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the Tzade the AR is speaking about csav BY, so a clear seperation turns it, into a yud and nun, so thay may not be fixed.
In regard to Tzade in Csav Ha'ari - this is a new debate, and unclear what is the AR opinion.
my question about the zadi is,
ReplyDelete1. is the point by which we say we cant fix a letter, the same by tzadi shin mem etc. as by yudei halef etc.i.e. that we'll listen to the tinok as long as we don't see clearly that there is no tzuras ois, (just that practically by tzadi shin mem etc. we will see that the tzuras ois has been lost with a much smaller hefsek) or
2. is the point by which we say we cant fix a letter, different by tzadi shin mem etc. then by yudei halef etc by yudei halef etc. i.e. we'll listen to the tinok as long as we don't see clearly that there is no tzuras ois, but by tzadi shin mem etc. once we have a hefsek nikkar we automatically won't listen to the tinnok, or
3. is 1 and 2 the same thing, because if there is a hefsek nikkar, then automatically the ois has lost it's tzurah?
thanks for taking the time to clarify this for me
all are correct.
Delete